An ideal material for root end-filling, perforation repair, treating resorptive defects, treating vital exposed pulps, and obturating immature non-vital teeth has long been sought. Silver amalgam was one of the first materials used as a root end filling material. But it can be cytotoxic, stain the soft tissues, corrodes, and does not provide an effective apical seal (1-3). Therefore, alternative endodontic materials such as Super EBA, glass-ionomer, resin-composite, and resin-modified glass-ionomers (RMGI) have all been used. Although some of these materials have some desirable properties, they are also insufficient in other aspects. For example, Super EBA has relatively poor biocompatibility and poor physical properties (4). Resin composites and some resin-modified glass-ionomers have a desirable attribute, that is, being light curable, however such resin-composites and glass-ionomer materials are intolerant of moisture. Resin-modified glass-ionomers are less user-sensitive and more tolerant of moisture, but still require a dry field (5). Therefore, the search for the ideal endodontic root-end filling and repair material continues. Recommended properties of an ideal endodontic root-end filling and repair material include: dimensional stability, good sealing ability, insolubility, tolerance to moisture, easy manipulation, a short and controllable set time, biocompatible, and the ability to promote regeneration of a normal periodontium.
MTA (mineral trioxide aggregate) was introduced in 1993; it is the most well documented, well accepted and widely used material (6-16). MTA is biocompatible, allows for regeneration of the attachment apparatus and regeneration of bone (17, 18). MTA is dimensionally stable and provides a superior apical seal compared to other materials (19). MTA is both biocompatible and bacteriostatic, likely due to a basic pH. However, MTA has somewhat demanding handling properties, a very long setting time, poor abrasion resistance, only fair resistance to dissolution, and acceptable, but not excellent physical properties (12-14). Indeed, the manufacturer of MTA requires that the set of MTA has to be checked at a minimum of 4 hours after placement, and it is recommended that MTA should not be placed in clinical situations where it might become exposed to the oral environment. MTA and materials closely related thereto are covered by a range, or ladder, of patents that extend well into the future. Currently, MTA is approximately an order of magnitude more expensive than its alternatives; and this limits its more widespread usage.
Therefore, there remains a need for alternative endodontic filling materials.
Therefore, it is an objective of the present invention to provide an alternative endodontic filling material.
The embodiments below address the above needs and objectives.